You all act like just because people sign a treaty/etc.. that it actually matters.. sheesh, history is wrought with broken political agreements/religious agreements. The truth is, florence happened and the RC still aren't in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. So what if the patriarch did/didn't sign it or everyone else signed it, it doesn't matter, it didn't happen (the outcome of the so called council) anyway.

The significant question is whether the compromise happened to such an extent that Apostolic continuity was interrupted in the EOC and thus proven that it was not the Church of Christ in the first place.

22 bishops out of hundreds? Sorry, no proof of discontinuity there.

You seem to have assumed that it was a leading question, but given this post, I think it should be clear it was not:

All the bishops of your entire communion, or just all the bishops present at Florence (about 20, IIRC?)?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

You all act like just because people sign a treaty/etc.. that it actually matters.. sheesh, history is wrought with broken political agreements/religious agreements. The truth is, florence happened and the RC still aren't in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. So what if the patriarch did/didn't sign it or everyone else signed it, it doesn't matter, it didn't happen (the outcome of the so called council) anyway.

The significant question is whether the compromise happened to such an extent that Apostolic continuity was interrupted in the EOC and thus proven that it was not the Church of Christ in the first place.

Of course not. Not all the bishops of the Orthodox Church capitulated, only some that went to Florence, and most of these recanted and returned to Orthodoxy. No interruption. Also, the other patriarchates anathematized the false council.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

That is what I suspected. Portraying Mark of Ephesus as if the lone star of Orthodoxy in the Church would seem to be rather misleading then.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

That is what I suspected. Portraying Mark of Ephesus as if the lone star of Orthodoxy in the Church would seem to be rather misleading then.

Maybe more like Daniel in the lions' den.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is what I suspected. Portraying Mark of Ephesus as if the lone star of Orthodoxy in the Church would seem to be rather misleading then.

Two bishops died.

Two bishops ran away.

17 bishops signed.

1 did not sign - Mark of Ephesus.

But the point is that it's misleading if one only reports on the bishops who were present at the council because it makes it sound like Mark of Ephesus was the only one in the EOC who did not accept the definition of faith of Florence.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com